Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

Mike, with all due respect I don't see the point you are making very clearly either. But I’ll make a stab at it.I read you as making two points, which I will tackle in reverse order. The two points see to be denying that creationists think scientist have a religious bias (or anti-religious bias); and insistence that macroevolution cannot be shown by experiment.On macroevolution, you say this: The comparison with the big bang is apt. It deals with events and conditions that occurred long ago, but which leave traces in the present that have been sufficient to show it occurred beyond any reasonable doubt. Details are still being worked out of course, but the fundamentals of expansion of space from conditions of enormous heat and density about 13 to 14 billion years ago is solid.In the same way macroevolution deals with events and conditions that occurred long ago, but which leave traces in the present that have been sufficient to show it occurred beyond any reasonable doubt. Details are still being worked out of course, but the fundamentals of common descent and development of modern living forms from primitive forms a few billion years ago is solid.As for the experiments; in your home you can look at CMBR radiation on your TV; it accounts for something from 1 to 10% of the snow on a TV tuned to a band without broadcasts. That would not be enough for a scientist, however. We only know this is CMBR because of far more subtle and careful experiments, by such things as the COBE and WMAP space observatories.In the same way; in your own home you can identify nested patterns of similarity in your pets and other animals; and in a field trip you can find fossils for yourself. This would not be enough for a scientist. We only know this is due to diverging lineages from common ancestors because of far more subtle and careful experiments, including carefully measured characteristics of living and things and traces of extinct forms; and by such things as protein and genome sequencing, which have revealed a host of evidence that is explained only by cumulative variations in lineages diverging from common ancestors — macroevolution.In both cases, you can learn about the evidence by reading. This brings up the point in the OP, about trust. I believe a major reason for the trust we have in science is that it is a community exercise. We don’t have nearly the trust in individuals as we do in conclusions that are supported by large numbers of independent investigators; and when effectively all but a few mavericks are content with a scientific model, we have very good reason to trust it. It is still not the same as an absolute trust in scripture (for example) because we expect new information and new revisions; but the fundamentals become pretty secure.We also trust the critical review process in science to weed out bad ideas, because we’ve seen it work in history. We don’t see the same thing in creationist work. It is not homogenous; and though different creationists can identify errors in one another’s work, the errors don’t die out in the same way; but persist as two sets of creationists calling one another heretics or compromisers or whatever.We’ve discussed the evidence for macroevolution here a number of times; you seem to think it is weak, and I think it is very strong indeed. I’m relaxed about that. I note that the scientific community is overwhelmingly agreed with my perspective on this; and that is certainly naked appeal to authority. But the basis for that appeal is, I consider, very strong. I don’t stop at merely trusting the majority; I can read more about the scientific consensus and the evidence that scientists find persuasive, and track what aspects are well supported and what are more speculative.It is also significant that the support for macroevolution cuts right across religious and cultural boundaries. Many scientists are Christians; including some of the really outstanding top rank evolutionary biologists and theorists. That also tends to undermine the claim that evolution is based more on philosophy than evidence.Which brings us to the second point I see you making: That is simply not true. It is commonly claimed by creationists (with varying degrees of vehemence and rationality) that evolution is driven by a desire to disprove the bible or by an effectively religious faith in an atheistic materialism.The late lamented WillowTree was notorious for claiming that all evolutionists are atheists, even if they claim to be Christians; he is now busy preaching this message in other forums.Jonathan Sarfati also considers religious bias to be a significant factor in evolution; he argues this is the dreadful article Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias.On the other side of the coin, there are some creationists (Kurt Wise springs to mind) who agree that on the face of it, the evidence supports evolution and an old earth; but that he is a young earth creationist because he prefers to trust the bible. That is, he is saying that creationism is founded primarily on a religious trust in the bible; this is acknowledging freely his religious bias.On the other hand, who cares? Bias is bound to be significant in individual perspectives on a matter. That is why trust is better not placed in individuals, but in mutually confirming arguments from many individuals. A few isolated individuals sometimes simply insist almost all evolutionists must have the same bias; but I tend to ignore that and go back to the arguments themselves, on their merits.Cheers -- Sylas

No, the evidence is frequently not available, pragmatically. What is avilable is descriptions of the evidence. Some descriptions are more reliable than others, and there is an element of trust in accepting descriptions.Valuable fossils are often kept under lock under key, and access very tightly controlled (nearly all hominid fossils, for example). Some observations happen only a point in time, and cannot be repeated (SN1987A, for example). Some observations require prohibitive budgets (supercollider or deep space probes), or unrealistic lengths of time (decades of field work observing Darwin's finches).There are also cases where a novice cannot even understand the descriptions offered; it is fair enough to consider the appropriate stance of someone who does not have the background to appreciate the details of descriptions of argument and evidence, or who cannot get at the evidence themselves, but who can get a working understanding of the main conclusions of scientists who access and report the evidence.Cheers -- Sylas

I think the point is that argument from authority, through not formally complete, is a reasonable way to proceed under some circumstances. Fossil hominids, as I noted previously, are often kept under lock and key, and only allowed to be examined directly by a very small number of people. There are good reasons for this; but it does mean that for details of hominid evolution we have no choice but by reading. The critical skill for a novice is being able to tell what is worth reading; balancing a critical eye with recognition of a strong case.Thus the answer to your question is (mostly) "No". It is not better to give everyone direct access to the evidence. And even if we could, it is not the case that everyone will be able to interpret evidence effectively; so it is still better for the novice to be guided by trustworthy authorities. The most appropriate access to evidence is by reading trustworthy authorities. Consideration of evidence is, of course, a good thing; but for many areas it must be second hand; we trust the reports of the evidence given by others. Even if we can access some kind of evidence directly, it is usually only for the sake of learning how evidence is gathered; we then go back to the more professional reports of evidence we we cannot examine directly.Cheers -- Sylas